<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Curving Normality &#187; research</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/tag/research/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl</link>
	<description>&#34;The extra-ordinary lies within the curve of normality&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:00:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Researchblogging.org: Updated and Running Strong!</title>
		<link>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/researchbloggingorg/</link>
		<comments>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/researchbloggingorg/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:00:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rense Nieuwenhuis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blogging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peer reviewed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[researchblogging.org]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/?p=555</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, <a href="www.researchblogging.org">Researchblogging.org</a> has been thoroughly updated; a good moment to reflect some on the initiative of researchblogging.org itself, my participation in it, and on the phenomenon of blogging on peer reviewed research itself.

Researchblogging.org is a non-profit initiative, and provides in a web-based gathering of posts from weblogs on science. Not all posts are gathered ('aggregated') though, only the ones that explicitly address research that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. In that, it distinguishes clearly from similar (collections of) scientists' blogs, for everything else but the research itself is left out. This is achieved by having bloggers to administer their posts on the researchblogging.org website manually, after which some PHP-code is provided. This code is added to the blog-post, resulting in a bibliographic reference to the article that is discussed, as well as the aggregation of the article to the researchblogging database. 

For me, this results in a very interesting collection of blog-posts, that are nicely categorised and stored in a searchable database accessible though the web. And this is where the new version of researchblogging.org becomes really interesting, because next to a visual update, new features have been added. Bloggers now can categorise their posts manually, making them easier to find by prospective readers. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/researchbloggingorg/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paradoxical negative spill-over of Catholics&#8217; attitudes on induced abortion</title>
		<link>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/paradoxical-negative-spill-over-of-catholics-attitudes-on-induced-abortion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/paradoxical-negative-spill-over-of-catholics-attitudes-on-induced-abortion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:20:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rense Nieuwenhuis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[catholic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[catholicism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pro choice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pro life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protestant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spill-over]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Value Survey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/?p=547</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Catholic church categorically rejects any practice of induced abortion, and, notwithstanding any issues regarding causality, so do its members. Catholic individuals generally have a negative attitude towards induced abortion, indeed. Jelen et al. were able to replicate this in their study on `abortion attitudes in western Europe'. However, they did not find that the average level of objection against induced abortion in a country correlates with the proportion of catholics in those countries. Furthermore, they even found that when individual level catholicism is taken into account, the higher the number of catholics in the country one lives in, the more <i>positive</i> one is regarding induced abortion.

<img src="http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/pro-choice.jpg" alt="" title="pro-choice" width="300" height="462" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-549" />
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/paradoxical-negative-spill-over-of-catholics-attitudes-on-induced-abortion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
